“We know where we are” the role of place in indigenous historiography by Haudenosaunee and Northwest Métis Historians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples in the Americas applied many means of encoding and passing down their histories prior to the arrival of Europeans, combining oral and material-based methods. They have maintained their own histories, including these original methods despite the violent disruptions imposed by settler colonialism. Furthermore, Indigenous peoples have adopted European-style methods alongside their own, both to share their histories with newcomers, and to help overcome the impacts of colonialism. The earliest written and published Indigenous histories for these purposes may be misunderstood as works of mythology, memoir, or outright fiction if presented separately from their context in Indigenous intellectual and historiographic tradition. To counter such misunderstandings and read these works in a respectful and accurate way, it is necessary to replace them in context and apply concepts from Indigenous critical and decolonial theory. This dissertation examines the changes in Indigenous historiography since the arrival of Europeans in two steps. First, it presents an overview of pre-invasion Indigenous historiographic methods and of recent Indigenous intellectual tradition. Then it presents two case studies of historical monographs by Northwest Métis and Haudenosaunee writers and knowledge keepers published between 1825 and 2018. Each case study applies concepts from Indigenous critical theory and decolonial theory to support reading the monographs according to the epistemologies and narrative genres of the Indigenous nation. The case studies illustrate how the Haudenosaunee and Northwest Métis written histories connect to pre-invasion, place-based records, and the ways that these historians have adopted and adapted Euro-style methods to new languages and media.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".